"Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." -- C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

Sunday, August 07, 2005

Tgirsch is someone I have had a few blogathons with over at Evangelical Outpost. We usually start out some fair distance from the fence on opposite sides and end up both leaning on the fence (on opposite sides) and chatting. That is actually rare in my experience. tgirsch listens, and cares not as much about defending his position and talking points; but in looking for agreement and some unity on the issues.

tgirsch: "I wanted to respond to you concerning our debate at Evangelical Outpost, but Joe has closed the comments." Me: "[We] were discussing Matthew 5-7 and whether the interpretation of that section of scripture (and related parts of Jesus' message) should be broadened beyond an analysis by Jesus of what our individual character should be to a call for certain qualities in society/government."Here are some posts from the discussion to set the tone for the discussion here:

Stavrogin: how does one interpret "turn the other cheek" to define pacifism as a sinful and un-Christian attitude? Even Christ would not permit a sword to be raised in his defense, however noble the intention.

Joe: [On turn the other cheek] "that passage has nothing overtly to do with violence. To turn the other cheek is to literally allow someone who has slapped you to give you a backhanded slap on the other cheek. To receive such a blow was a great insult in Judaism; an offense against oneÂs dignity. While I agree that Christians should bear insults with meekness and humility, I do not believe that the passage intends for us to stand by and allow our neighbor to be raped,murdered, or mutilated . . . [On Christ and sword] Christ would not allow such a defense on his behalf because it was his intention to lay down his life willingly for us all."

Stavrogin: [On pacifism generally being sinful] ". . .Thee impression I get [is] that abandoning oneself to the mercy of God in the face of oppression, torment and even martyrdom at the hands of the unrighteous is a supremely Christian value.

Me: Would it be equally true if you were watching someone rape and kill your neighbor; and you abandoned them to the mercy of God? No, I think not. Could you interject yourself and become the victim while the other escaped? Of course. Could you harm, and even kill, the rapist to stop the killing? I think you could. There is ample justification in the Bible for government having the responsibility to use the sword to defend its people. I think calling people un-Christian for being personally pacifist is incorrect. Christians have been interpreting scripture, and God's will, to require their personal pacifism for a long time . . . it is almost impossible to use the bible to say the US government should be pacifist. We would be required, of course, to refuse participation in an unjust war: say a war of genocide.

Joe: I will agree that personal pacifism may not be inherently un-Christian (though there are times when non-violent resistance can be as unjust a use of power as violence). But I think that the right to pacifism, like the right to swing one's fist, ends at your neighbor's nose.

Mike: Commandments are by and large directed to individuals and not governments. Thou shalt not murder is directed to us as individuals. You only have to go down the page a little to find a list of circumstances under which society should exercise the death penalty.

Tgirsch: This illustrates a great problem with a literalist interpretation of scripture. It takes what Jesus likely intended as a larger message and pigeonholes it into something very specific and very narrowly applied. You take a very legalistic reading of Jesus' words here, and I think it's to your detriment.

Me: Damned if we do, damned if we do not. I think it is actually very necessary to take the Bible as literally as possible - in order to stop the use of scripture to support all those things you talk about. [Quoted Matt 5:38 - 42]. Everything here is about personal revenge or offensives to your person by another person. What reason is there to broaden it? In fact, the whole Sermon on the Mount was about personal righteousness and the personal traits of a Kingdom member. Let's let Christ say what Christ wants to say.

Tgirsch: The "eye for eye" verses don't concern personal revenge at all, but adherence to the law. [Quotes Lev 24:17-22: ] . Take the entire passage in context and you see that it's a conversation between God and Moses wherein God is proscribing His laws. Personal revenge has little to do with it; this is God's law. It is Biblical justice. A broad reading of the passage is advisable precisely because that's what makes sense in the context. I find it difficult to imagine that Jesus was speaking strictly of avoiding personal revenge against those who have wronged you personally, and nothing else . . .Notee that the Leviticus verse isn't saying what a wronged person would be within his rights to do, which is what you'd expect if revenge were the motivation. It talks about what must be done, and it doesn't say that the wronged party should be the one to do it. Someone who wrongs another must be wronged in similar fashion

Me: The whole context of Jesus's "ministry" (lame word really), and the Sermon on the Mount, is that the law needs not to be written in stone but on our hearts. Christianity is not a legalistic, law-driven belief structure - it is God's attempt to change our character and how we center our lives: To love God with our whole being; and our neighbor as ourselves. That is taken one individual at a time. He was HEAVILY amending (if not revoking) the Levitical law you quoted. He was, after all, here to revoke ( fulfill (as in complete) and replace the Mosaic covenant. Again, all of Matthew 5-7 is about the internal qualities and character of members of the Kingdom; and not about how society and government should behave. If you make the argument that a society of people having this character would approach its collective life, and relationship with other societies, differently - we would be on the same page entirely. [A quote from CS Lewis saying that the problem with political programs flowing from Christianity is that we go there to find support for our opinions rather than to see what our opinions should be]. The emphasis of Christianity is building our individual character to match that of Christ's, and have that character act as "salt and light" in the society around us - and that was the emphasis of the Sermon on the Mount.

Tgirsch: Jesus clearly is admonishing against violence here, even if in a limited context. I'd argue that it does Jesus' teaching a disservice to try to limit the scope of this admonition . . . I'm not aware of Jesus advocating violence anywhere, in any circumstance. So there's nothing else in Jesus' teaching that tells us we should limit our interpretation of that admonition. I believe he intended it to be broad (and many, many Christians concur, I might add). Given his habit of speaking in parables and using specific examples to illustrate broader principles (neither of which I suspect you'll dispute), the broad application makes the most sense here. Which brings us back to Stavrogin's original point: how is pacifism un-Christian? . . .Until you can show me where Jesus advocates war and capital punishment, I'll continue to argue that neither of these things helps "[build] our individual character to match Christ's," and in fact both are counterproductive to this end, and as such, Stavrogin's point stands.

Me: I think capital punishment is untenable from a Christian standpoint - but not everyone agrees (even the Catholics, who generally oppose it, aren't ironclad). As to war, you yourself I believe would fall into the just/unjust category on this - unless you would have bowed out of WWII even after Pearl Harbor; or finding out about the slaughter of the Jews. There is plenty of New Testament ground for government not having the same responsibilities as individuals. I think there are political responsibilities that flow from the character traits in the Sermon on the Mount - but I still argue for narrow interpretation of the Bible. I think we should be careful to fill in blanks with our own thoughts.

Nick: [on separation of Biblical view of individual vs state roles] I think that can be the basis of a Scripturally consistent defense of Christian pacifism. People like to point to Romans 13 for the role of government as an agent of God's wrath bearing the sword. But we might note that Paul is instructing the Roman Christians on how to respond to government. He doesn't indicate whether or not they should participate. However, in Chapter 12, he describes Christians as agents of God's mercy in a way that dovetails nicely with Christ's instructions in the Servant on the Mount and doesn't fit very well with the responsibilities of government in Chapter 13 . . .We might conclude that the code of conduct required of Christians is very different from the actions of government. We might also ask if it there is any support in Christ's instructions for the idea that it is possible to morally separate the things we do as private individuals from the things we do for the government. Even if we agree that government is established by God (perhaps in much the same way that he established the Babylonians and Assyrians as agents of his wrath in the Old Testament), weshouldd be very careful about concluding that we are permitted to do things as servants of government that we are not permitted to do as servants of Christ. To claim that Christians must always be ready to fight may be arrogating to much responsibility to ourselves. Christ calls us to be agents of love and mercy. He'll handle the wrath.

This is a magnificently important "brain cramp" for Christians and I have invited some people to help it continue. There are a couple of things I do not want this sidelined too: this is not a discussion on Iraq and whether we should be there; or whether any politicians who call themselves Christians are following Christ's example. I am inviting folks to the party - hopefully some will attend.

UPDATE:This topic does not need to be limited to the death penalty and pacifism. Discussion in general about how faith should, and should not, impact a Christian's secular political life would be great

11 comments:

Well, first thing's first. Let's do a global search and replace and fix it so that it says "tgirsch" (my actual screen name) instead of "tgrisch" (which is what a lot of people want to turn it into). :)

Now, where were we?

I think capital punishment is untenable from a Christian standpoint - but not everyone agrees (even the Catholics, who generally oppose it, aren't ironclad).

Well, the Catholics (at least the official church doctrines) are quite consistent with respect to capital punishment. The Church teaches that capital punishment is only permissible when it is the only way to prevent the offender from doing further harm to others. And church leaders have since written that in modern times, such a circumstance is all but inconceivable. That is, there are always ways to keep an offender from doing more harm; even if this means solitary confinement for life, that's still preferable to the death penalty.

As to war, you yourself I believe would fall into the just/unjust category on this

Unfortunately, war is sometimes necessary in my opinion, but how I feel about it isn't exactly relevant. I was merely talking about what Jesus taught, and to my knowledge he never personally advocated violence of any kind, never mind war. Paul might be a different bird there.

I think there are political responsibilities that flow from the character traits in the Sermon on the Mount - but I still argue for narrow interpretation of the Bible.

I think it's ill-advised to narrolw interpret Jesus' teachings, especially considering the fact that he frequently taught in parables and put layered lessons into his teachings. There is great wisdom to be found there, well beyond the immediate lesson at hand, if we'll just look.

I think we should be careful to fill in blanks with our own thoughts.

Perhaps, but a textually narrow interpretation doesn't necessarily mean caution. While we shouldn't take too much liberty with our reading of Jesus' teachings, I believe he would also frown on a too-narrow reading. And that's all I'm saying.

It's not possible for a society or government to commit a sin. It has no soul, it's incapable of the act. If discussing sin, it is always about individuals, not groups. There is really no such thing as an evil people or government, not even when talking about Nazi's. Having said that, because a government or group of people as a whole has no soul, it also is not capable of guilt or distinguishing right and wrong. Therefore whenever people choose to act as a group, then that action must be chosen and evaluated carefully and warily. It's something to be suspicious of at all times, even when the most noble of purposes are claimed.

When Jesus talks about turning the other cheek, I've always read that as a caution against acting in self-righteousness toward another. Not merely when feeling vindicated to use physical violence but rather taking revenge of any sort. I think the passage is about the evil of revenge even more than the evil of violence. Revenge is the ultimate impermissible act, not violence. Revenge implies judgment of someone Else's soul, and that is strictly God's territory alone. We humans are not competent enough in that area to make such an evaluation.

However, violence may or may not be permissible so long as it is not for revenge. In this sense it is acceptable to fight in a war and even kill another provided you are protecting others and even your own life. What would not be acceptable would be to do this motivated by revenge. I know I keep repeating myself, but the one thing that always sticks out for me regarding the beatitudes is that they are cautions and blessings of thoughts and feelings rather than actions. It's why you do something that counts, not necessarily what you do.

Death Penalty:

In some cases it is a just punishment for a crime. However, I do not believe that as a society we should permit it. I'm a former full-blown proponent of the death penalty. What made me have second and third thoughts was watching when a few years ago CA had its first death penalty execution in many years. Specifically what I saw were pro-death penalty people in the parking lot of the prison having tailgate parties waiting for the final walk of the prisoner down death row.

It sickened me. I came to the conclusion that as a society we are not mature enough to be trusted with the death penalty. The taking of a life in such a manner should be done with a sober and serious mind, not a giddy sense of righteousness. As a society, we may never be mature enough to be trusted with it. It's a permanent, final act. There's no taking it back or undoing the taking of a life.

And also, even though I still believe the death penalty to be at times to a just punishment, it's also simply not a legal power I'm comfortable trusting a government of any kind to have. Not even a government I believe in and am a part of. It's a power thats just too easily abused or used in error.

I don't share the view that the Sermon on the Mount is a sort of manual of personal virtues. I don't think Jesus was dividing our private conduct from our lives in society--saying, in effect, that one was bound to bear insults in private but to take up arms for the government. He was not a just war theorist. If we are to fight wars--just, unjust, or ambivalent--we are going to have to do it without Christ's blessing or sanction. There is no textual evidence for Christ endorsing any kind of war.

The arguments above were the basis for Luther's 'Two Realms' doctrine, in which Christ's commands to pacifism (and poverty, which is maybe more unpopular) are in paradox with divine commands to family and communal life. One may lay down one's own life, Luther said, but one may not abdicate one's responsibility to protect a family (in the case of a father) or a people (in the case of the prince). This does not mean, however, that measures like war and capital punishment are somehow free of sin--they are not. But so long as the world endures in its present state, we will have to live with that sin if we are to live at all.

This is not necessarily my view, but it's worth mentioning. In any case, I think the individualism of American society has bled into our religion such that we view Christ as speaking to individuals when he was using the plural form of address and indicting (and commanding) humankind generally.

When Jesus talks about turning the other cheek, I've always read that as a caution against acting in self-righteousness toward another. ... I think the passage is about the evil of revenge even more than the evil of violence. Revenge is the ultimate impermissible act, not violence.

But then why couch it terms of Old Testament law that concerns crime and punishment? That's precisely what Jesus did here.

And also, even though I still believe the death penalty to be at times to a just punishment, it's also simply not a legal power I'm comfortable trusting a government of any kind to have.

Your hypothetical support of the death penalty is hard to square with your violence-as-revenge-is-impermissible idea. The death penalty is the ultimate form of revenge. After all, it rectifies nothing, so it can't be justice. It may be societal revenge rather than individual revenge, but it is revenge nonetheless.

In the more extreme cases, like McVeigh's case, justice was done a disservice by executing him. Life in prison would have been a more appropriate punishment; death let him off too easy in my estimation.

But then why couch it terms of Old Testament law that concerns crime and punishment? That's precisely what Jesus did here.

I'm not a theologian but perhaps because he was speaking to his audience? How would the Jews of the time be most easily able to relate to and understand what he said? By couching it in the framework of laws and traditions they were already familiar with.

And as far as the death penalty goes, your right, it's a contradiction. But thats often the difference between feeling and thinking and is another good reason not to have the death penalty.

Let's turn this around and look at Jesus's positive commands, not just his proscriptions. We are commanded to give to all who ask, to give our possessions to the poor and follow Christ, to visit the prisoners, feed the hungry, and clothe the naked. Is it enough for us to view these as 'personal' habits and virtues unconnected to our role as members of a society? Or does Jesus expect us to use our public influence--whatever little of it we may have--to make sure that we collectively do these things as well?

For example, individuals and congregations can do a lot through charitable giving to stem famine (i.e., feed the hungry). This action cannot, however, as far as I can see, do what is needed to prevent famine from being a continual occurence, including changing federal trade and agricultural policies, the nature and quantity of development aid, and enforcement of environmental norms that prevent drought and crop loss in the first place. These things require "the power of the sword," to be anachronistic. Are we, as Christians, allowed to be agnostic on how that power is used so long as we are personally charitable? Obviously I think not, but if others disagree I would be interested to hear.

I titled the piece Kingdom Character because this is deeper to me than virtue. There is that old saying: "Sow a thought, reap an action; sow an action, reap a habit; sow a habit, reap a character; sow a character, reap a destiny."

This elevates the Sermon on the Mount. Character is not built overnight; and in the case of most of these traits not in this lifetime - they will be perfected in our eternity with God. They are built by doing as well as believing. There can be no separation between our character and our actions.

If I were a politician there are things my character would not allow me to support; as well as things I would have to support. In voting for a politician, I may have to weigh issues: Candidate A is anti-abortion and pro-death penalty; while Candidate B is pro-choice and anti-death penalty. Neither has an opinion on foreign aid, or serving the poor, that is "quite right" but both may "do good". One of them seems a little personally sketchy morally.

My biggest problem with the death penalty (other than its irreversibilty - no small matter considering the plethora of DNA inspired reversals lately) is that it cuts off the possibility that someone can make a decision to turn to God and Christ for a new life. If they do not believe, I do not want to stop the ability to "sow seeds, water plants, and harvest". That said, can I really think it is OK to kill the Christians (now that their eternity is taken care of); and keep the pagans alive just in case. Certainly that would end insincere conversions among prisoners.

Christianity, as opposed to Judaism, doesn't give us law as much as it tries to give us Kingdom character (laws written on our heart not stone) that can drive our actions. The Bible doesn't give us a Christian foreign policy; the outlines of a Christian poverty program; or particular directions on how to clothe the naked. It gives us a character and tells us to do these things.

I call this blog "Brain Cramps for God" because I post on issues that give me one. After English Christians convinced England to end the English slave trade; they then pushed for, and acquired, English naval action to intervene in the entire Atlantic slave trade; and the Arab slave trade. They were willing to have the British government go to war and kill slavers to end this evil.

Certainly Jesus was not always "peaceful". There were two temple events (which I have a hard time believing caused no physical injury - though I cannot prove they did); as well as the damning eternally of whole cities that didn't recieve His message. Of course, as God incarnate He could judge, and punish, because He was the subject of harm of sin. We are not.

In the Sermon, some laws (adultery and murder) He deepened and raised the bar on; at least one he stood on its head (eye for an eye) and apparently reversed.

Christianity, as opposed to Judaism, doesn't give us law as much as it tries to give us Kingdom character (laws written on our heart not stone) that can drive our actions. The Bible doesn't give us a Christian foreign policy; the outlines of a Christian poverty program; or particular directions on how to clothe the naked. It gives us a character and tells us to do these things.

I agree with you. I'd like to make a small observation, though.

Rather than say, "Christianity, as opposed to Judaism", I would probably say something like "orthodox Christianity, as opposed to orthodox Judaism", or better yet, "the New Testament, as opposed to the Old Testament".

John--I don't necessarily disagree with your description of Christianity (although 'Kingdom character' is a phrase with some problems, I think), but I don't think it does justice to the fulness of the issue.

In his book Shantung Compound, about a Japanese internment camp in China during WWII, Langdon Gilkey talks about the delivery of a vast number of care packages from the American Red Cross. The governing body of the prisoners (including British, Greeks, Russians, etc.) wanted to distribute the parcels evenly among all the camp. Some vocal Americans objected, claiming that as gifts from the American Red Cross, they belonged only to the American prisoners. So on their protest, the Japanese halted the distribution. Gilkey was one of the Americans arguing for an even distribution, and he tried to persuade a missionary to take their position. The missionary refused, saying that an equal distribution would be without merit, because it would be forced. The Americans could and should voluntarily give up some part of their packages, but it had to be theirs to give, or it would not be to anyone's credit. The Japanese ended up giving every family one package and then shipping the rest to a different camp.

It is good to be concerned about the upbuilding of one's character, but it is infinitely more important to be concerned about the welfare of one's neighbor. While it is certainly true that Christ gives us no blueprints for an anti-poverty program, he also gives us no excuse for being indifferent to poverty as a public issue (as opposed to a matter of private charity). I agree entirely that we will not see a Christian politics or even a Christian politician, but we can't slough off Christ's commands just because we're dealing with a realm in which no one gets credit and in which no character but that of our society is at stake.

I do not think we disagree at all actually. I do not think you actually build your Christian character by being concerned about yourself much at all. One of those amazing things is that the more we become "poor in spirit" and "merciful"; the more we put ourselves last and others first; and the more we die to self to live for Christ - the more we begin to develop our true personality and self, as God envisions us, for the first time.

We have to take our eyes off of ourselves to become our true self.

I realized in my very disjointed last comment that I picked examples which were morally unclear. We are not (I hope) going to see a Christian United States. Or a Christian Party of America to compete with the Democrats and Republicans. We will have Christian politicians who have to balance their beliefs with those of their constituents who elected them; and have to discern what is the best way to deliver charity and mercy as social policy rather than individual act. You and I have to figure this out too.